Leaderboard

Pretty sure I'm the first person outside of China who has the new Kinefinity TERRA 4k. I've been a bit of a ghost on this forum since going all-in on the Kine pre-order, but here's an unboxing video by way of saying hello again:

The official review is live! I had fun with this. I'm trying something new...

Just picked up a Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 for £125 on ebay, will be testing it on my Gh5/Metabones combo

As a D5300 (5200 a year before that) owner for the past 3 years, I agree. It produces a good image and is certainly a capable camera (depending on the context) but it does lack a lot of the cool refinements that have come up in recent years...stock flat profile, 120fps slo mo, and of course no luck on the video AF, at least for me. But it does have a nice look to it if your just shooting for YouTube, or basically anything where 1080p plus isn't required. I will likely upgrade in the next year to something else. I've been toying with swapping it for a d5500 (both about the same price used) just to try the stock flat profile against flaat 11 which I use. But even then...

cantsin nails it with his post. I cannot fathom how anyone on this site... content creators... can agree with their biggest showcases (youtube, vimeo, ...) being possible paywalled. Or they'll add a monthly limit. I also cannot see how deregulating an oligarchy of ISPs is going to do any good for customers. Maybe i have that view because i work in IT. For myself i don't care, as i know my ways around ISP induced limitations (look up tunneling through https header packaged traffic to your own VPS) ... but frankly, you (the US) will loose so much. Not only in media creation, but also for new startups, who will find they'll eventually have to pay the big providers to even get speed or connection. That's where you are headed.

So all summer I've bene working on this short film, which is in the Sound Design/ADR/VFX/Scoring stage right now. It's the first really "serious" (as in made with the intention of submitting to festivals and not just dumped online) project I've done since my first feature film way back in 2009-2010. Chicken is a horror comedy about a woman named Brenda, who has fallen on hard times financially, and is working as a mascot sign dancer for a chicken fast food restaurant, Wally's Chicken. But her boss, Steve, is a pill-popping abusive lunatic who bullies and pushes her to perform up to the standard of the former beloved mascot, who has recently passed away. As the stress of her job mounts, Brenda begins to believe she is being stalked by Chicken mascot. Here are a few grabs: From the fake crappy local commercial that opens the film. The signs of the restaurant we filmed at still need to be replaced. Guinevere P.H. Dethlefson as Brenda Brandon Nebitt as Steve. Shot ont he Sony a6300 with mostly the Rokinon 16mm, and occasionally the Canon FD 35-105mm 3.5 zoom. It should be complete by the end of the year, and probably premiere next year. I may even share a private link here before it's premiere if there is any interest. Here's a little glimpse of some sign dancing:

Now downloadable from Appstore: 10.4. Upgraded to High Sierra with APFS today, clean install. No glitches detected so far. New version feels more responsive. Only plugin: Neat (seems to work, but slow as usual). Existing libraries need to be conformed. So beware - a one-way. But no cul-de-sac. CC tools make me believe (after an hour of playing around) that I won't use Resolve anymore. Apple stole the HSL curves, which I use the most anyway. To monitor HDR, you need very expensive third party hardware, so I skip this for now (long thread I started a year ago). But I was right with one thing: Apple promises an easy SHARE option for various distributions. If PQ (HDR10) needs two versions (one in SDR), Compressor exports the film as a bundle, allegedly fully compatible. We'll see.

Good to know, thanks.

That's fine and all. What could happen and what probably will happen with the USA internet is ridiculous. I'm speaking anecdotally about my subjective opinion about how it all fits in my life. Damn straight people are getting manipulated every day. There's a whole deeper discussion about free will and how our perception of that is constantly, and easily, controlled by these big biz'nezz-ez. The ability of online companies to emotionally sway people is fascinating...and as I sad, insidious. I no longer consider the internet a safe playground. Haven't for about 15 years. And it's always getting a bit worse. Also, you can't fix stupid -- you take advantage of it ---which is why companies that want to make a ton of money turn to those people first to acquire it. But, like I said, I could just pull the plug on it and improve my life. What's stopping me though??

It happens with most smartphone cameras since they only compensate for pitch and roll, and not for the yaw axis.

Without disagreeing with the overall need to overcome our internet addiction, we have to be careful of what effect abandoning these net neutrality rules could have on the society. The problem is that SOME sites could have 56kbps and OTHERS could have 1000000Kbps. And guess what, people stay longer on sites that load faster. Now what happens when my ONLY internet provider doesn't want me to read certain news outlets? We have a very easy way of biasing and manipulating masses of people. What do those people do? Elect idiots that are getting the world closer to catastrophic event, either by global warming or nuclear holocaust. And it is not that I am being gloomy, that has already happened in the microenvironment of Facebook, and now it is allowed for any type of internet interaction.

Newer chipsets are much more efficient processing HEVC, yes. Even the difference between Sky Lake and Kaby Lake is substantial since Kaby Lake supports full hardware acceleration rather than software/GPU combo.

I recently began running the instagram account @uuuartcollective and the team and I are launching a new short video series profiling working artists. Here's the first in the series. We'll have a new video each week for the foreseeable future. Tech specs: Shot on a gh5 with an sir magic 25mm .95, graded with film convert. This has been my go-to lens lately, I am loving the look so much I may buy the 17.5 after the next couple of gigs go through. Enjoy guys! And keep creating.

Plus UHD may be 10bit all-i. And perhaps 1080p all-i up to 120p.

Not necessarily. From what I have seen there is little difference between 4K 24p 10bit 150 inter vs 400 intra. At 60p the difference will be even smaller.

Lukes facial expression at 3:51 tells me it's a new sensor.

You guys need to go back and look at Lukes's "Best VLOG Ever" videos on Youtube starting in November. I cannot be sure of this, but I believe the night footage filmed in "Strange Battlefronts 2" could very well be footage from the new camera. At the beginning of the "V-Log" Luke unboxes a classified piece of equipment and later goes out for a night drive with his wife. I believe this is sample footage from the new camera. I seriously doubt it's the same sensor as the GH5. You guys are barking up the wrong tree. I'll bet my bottom dollar, it's a low-resolution sensor similar to what Sony has with the A7S2. And not only better low-light capability but better dynamic range and highlight roll-off. Check out the video here. Here is a frame grab:

Specs aside, from the frame grabs I am liking what I am seeing. We won't know for sure until we see some actual footage under various lighting conditions. I will be curious to see how this pans out.

Well, I read from time to time Alex Tutubalin blog (RawDigger, FastRawViewer, LibRaw) and all the cases he describes as developer of raw files manipulation tools made me to think this way. He has an idea about raw metadata and how to apply it but often gets some strange results with new cameras. They are usually not affecting general style photography but can be found by raw analysis or in some extreme shooting conditions, like: https://www.lonelyspeck.com/why-i-no-longer-recommend-sony-cameras-for-astrophotography-an-open-letter-to-sony/ But I guess it's safe to think there is quite some fine tweaking inside modern photocameras. Is it applicable to cinema cameras? Hard to say, but why all these companies avoid the benefits of modern processing power? Like, Sony a7R3 chews 420Mpix/s for stills, so it's capable in theory to apply same processing for 4K 50fps stream. I'm no expert in ML but looks like in general for raw recoding it's a side hack that grabs image from memory buffer at some stage of processing pipeline and dumps it to card. Who knows, maybe this issue is corrected later in processing or it wasn't designed to be corrected in this sensor mode or operation mode.

For me it's hard to tell. I work in the tech sector and there are a lot of technologies coming online that could serve the film industry particularly well. I think the bigger question for me is how will the industry react to new paradigms? I think in an evolutionary sense, the approach of filmmaking has stayed relatively unchallenged and unchanged as we have wrapped current technology around the current ways of how we think about filmmaking. But let's say for giggles and grins we get to the point of an having a tiny camera implanted into your eye that can transmit a signal, which btw does exist to aid the blind, albeit in rough form currently. (The video signal is projected on the back of the brain same as a functioning retina) Suddenly, you are the camera and the way you frame the world is immediate and you are the film and audiences tune into your perception? Or maybe they are the film and shape how it progresses using you as the container? Maybe audiences will reject narratives altogether and actually live out their dreams and fantasies instead of live them vicariously through someone else's vision of the world? Remember, film in it's original intent was an answer to the limitations of sharing visual stories in it's time. Just cave paintings were a limitation of technology for the caveman. What has now become an established art and craft, started out as solving a technological challenge for inartistic purposes. If you're a filmmaker you should invest in the skill of storytelling, not the technology, because it's too unpredictable and exponential to rely on. What was fine to rely on in past decades will be less and less reliable as technology moves faster and faster. In the immediate I definitely see a trend for smaller and smaller footprints with increased quality in output and more intelligent automation. Technology is already at the point where huge machines are not needed to capture great technical content. I see cameras getting ever smaller and crews getting smaller too. It's a really simple equation. If one could have Alexa/RED quality in a form factor that fits in the palm of your hand why would you ever choose to use a heavy and cumbersome machine that needs a ton of accessories and a crew of people to help give it the quality and fluidity of seeing the world through the human eye? If you have any sense and instinct about you, you wouldn't. Unless you're just a nostalgic fool and love the art of complication. (Some do, no judge)

@kidzrevil, for your A6500. You are so posh, baby! Now show me some magic! Edit: my apologies to all of you. I meant, of course: Now show US some magic, please:)

Ahhhh! You’re not making it easy for me! Lol.

I took another look, and realized what I thought I saw with the AF/AE button was not the case. ( LOL ) Looking at another screen shot, it's pretty much identical to the GH5 with it's button arrangement, and labeling. The only visible difference that I can see is the drive mode dial red ring, no red buttons... Either way, I'll be putting my name down for one to be shipped my way as soon as it's officially announced.

There is this sensor: http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/KAE-02152-D.PDF It has some kind of non-destructive amplifier that uses some side effects of transferring the charge during readout to probe the charge and determine whether use charge multiplier to add gain or not. This kind of amplification allows to dig much more DR, acoording to specs. But it's CCD, and I have no idea if this tech is suitable for CMOS sensors. Wish I could understand this stuff better. Fixed-pattern noise reduction, black frame subtraction, microlens effects correction (like "Italian flag"), regular spatial NR, dead pixels remapping - it's what I know. That's why you can get nicely matching results from two different cameras of one model - all the fine and unit specific tuning is already done. If something is omitted or made wrong we get those stories like Ursa mini 4.6K launch. So, better say that raw image isn't baked but normalised.

New project I am working on Straight out of the Can. Gosh I still love the 1dc. (4k pull out). This camera was ahead of its time..

Is it simply a new Vlog which is 5 times better than the original...and will cost 500€/$? A free red sticker to be included in the purchase? This is terrible! Having to wait until 2018 means xmas has been ruined! Panasonic, quit f**king around. Bring back the original release date!

nice post

These are just some examples: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history And keep in mind that an FCC report found that only a little more than one-third of the population had more than one internet provider that offered speeds of 25 Mbps or more, the FCC's minimum definition of broadband. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-6A1.pdf Remember how big companies fought Google fiber or other government entity from installing and providing internet? Just one example out of many: https://newrepublic.com/article/102699/rural-broadband-internet-wifi-access Or have divided the areas between them: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16933/how-broadband-providers-seem-avoid-competition Personally I live in the center of one of the largest cities in US and my only choice is ATT. I pay ~80$ for ~25mbps similar to the price that Google fiber is charging for 1gbit. Specifically for net neutrality, expecting companies to be ethical is like expecting Santa to deliver your presents. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

I've never met someone who is against net neutrality. Only bots, and lobbyists.

I really liked it. I think the coloring fit the movie quite well. Cuts were done on the most part cleanly. I think you did a great overall job. I see little I would change. Good story to boot.

I have more new free tracks ready for this week: On the Fantasy 7 page: "Kingdom of Darkness" (Looping and Standard) http://soundimage.org/fantasy-7/ On the Horror/Surreal page: "City of the Disturbed" (Looping and Standard) http://soundimage.org/horrorsurreal/ On the Sci-Fi 6 page: "Dystopian Wasteland" (Looping and Standard) "Mysterious Anomaly" "Sci-Fi Trance 2" (Looping) "Sci-Fi Trance 3" (Looping) http://soundimage.org/sci-fi-6/ I hope everyone's having a good week! :-)

Hi everyone, Here are this week's new free tracks: On the Events/Travel 2 page, here's one for my drone pilot friends: "Dreaming at Altitude" http://soundimage.org/events-travel-2/ On the Funny 4 page, we have: "Galactic Cranks" (Lopping) "Space Chickens from the 70s" (Looping) http://soundimage.org/funny-4/ On the Sci-Fi 6 page: "Sci-Fi Trance" (Looping) http://soundimage.org/sci-fi-6/ And on the City/Urban 2 page: "Streets of Desperation" http://soundimage.org/city-urban-2/ Please feel free to share my work with anyone who might it useful! :-)

Hey guys, It was a very hectic week with the holiday and such, but I did manage to create a few new tracks for you: On the Action 2 page: "Desert Mayhem" (Looping) http://soundimage.org/action-2/ On the Dark/Ominous page: "Something Freaky This Way Comes" (Looping) "More Freaky Things This Way Come" (Looping) http://soundimage.org/dark-ominous/ On the Funny 4 page: "Sneaky Sneaky" (Lopping) http://soundimage.org/funny-4/ And on the Horror/Surreal page: "Bells of Weirdness" http://soundimage.org/horrorsurreal/ Have a good week!

Saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday (no plot spoilers in my observations). This is a generally well-realized near-future sci-fi film, as many of the modern fully-funded Hollywood blockbusters are (this one is estimated as costing between $150-185 million depending on what you read). But it does seem somewhat formulaic, lacking any special distinction or energy. It pays homage to the advertising nightmare rainy city as before, and in the breakers yard wasteland goes for a more Mad Max vibe. But non of it has a truly unique knock-out experience as the earlier film managed with less advanced effects. Seeing Blade Runner in 1982 was nothing short of a cinematic revelation about what was possible, given the commitment of various art departments through sheer force of personality and vision. And since things have moved on so much now (the artistry of the CGI people is incredible), it does not give anything like a new version of that sense of wonder which jolted me in the eighties. The sound design follows the trend of many modern action films in being set at a painfully high level - the sort of film in which just putting a drink down on a table sounds like a firecracker going off, and drawing on a cigarette briefly sounds like a bush fire. On this film, a gun shot was as loud as an huge explosion, taking me out of the story every time because of the discomfort. And this was more easy than it should have been, because the story itself felt confused to me and several times I found myself wondering how much longer the film was going on (never a good sign). Although the trailer gives the impression of a sophisticated fast-paced action thriller, in fact everything takes a long time, and is not particularly worth waiting for. Unfortunately it's not very sophisticated either, with uninspired dialogue. I did actually feel mildly bored, which surprised me - I didn't think they would make that mistake - because the overall drama remained cold and uninvolving. Non of the characters turned out to be anyone I could care for, compared to key scenes in the original, such as when Rachel starts playing a piano (and says: "I didn't know I could play."). With the original the audience felt like crying, in this new one some of the characters cry, but it doesn't ring true. It's a bit like watching a full-on romance movie in which it is obvious there is no chemistry between the two lead actors - all of the humans watching such a movie know it immediately: that these two people are only together because they have been badly cast in a movie. In the same way the new Blade Runner story continues with the theme of what it means to be human in a difficult future world of synthetic people, yet tells it with little show of the humanity which is supposed to be so important. Seeing the original movie in the cinema was a life-changing experience, and I eagerly bought the VHS, then later many versions on DVD, etc-etc. It was a way of keeping in touch with a dream, but I have no interest in watching this one again - in any formats that may exist in the future. I opted to see the 2D version of the film because the movie was shot in 2D - ironically, the 3D version has been synthetically processed to give a 3D effect. It's not that I dislike this movie because I liked the original so much, my reaction would be the same if the original never existed. Because it's a disappointing movie in its own right, though obviously without knowing that I had to see it out of a slight hope there was something of the mesmerizing quality of Rachel's self-realization. But of course there is only one Sean Young.

I saw this yesterday & yes, the sound was way too loud - so loud it felt that my eardrums were about to burst. I think the problem is definitely with modern sound mixing - there is too much contrast between the quiet & loud sequences. But in modern cineplexes, they have to raise the volume to drown out the air con, which i could still hear, and the other films, which i could also hear at times - real shame. The film itself was great Sci-Fi & my reasoning is that 24hrs later i'm still thinking about it - something i can't say about most Hollywood films ATM. There is so much detail in this film that most of the comments concerning this film have missed or ignored. I do believe that the original has been put on so high a pedestal that most people have overlooked the fact that it is a deeply flawed, imperfect film - it looks great & the story is ok. But.....it's very simplistic considering the original source material, which is rich with ideas & provokes so many interesting concepts - what great Sci-Fi should do since its a comment on our present society. But what really bugs me about the original is which version is everyone putting on a pedestal? There are how many versions? Personally, the Original version & the Final Cut are both great, but have slightly different ideas running through them & I have always regarded them in equal admiration - 2 for the price of 1. SPOILERS, BIG ONES! There's so much in this film, it's difficult to know how to unpack it all - the end seems as good a place as any to start. The fact that the daughter (the best freelance memory creator) has manipulated replicants in order to facilitate her search for her father is absolute genius. The falling snow on K's hand & then the cut to her creating the snow memory live, makes you realise that K really is her Pinocchio. He's her puppet that she's been manipulating, through her implanted memory of the horse story, along with the other rebel replicants who all think they are the miracle baby (or should that be Messiah - a common Sci-Fi concept) at some point in their journey towards manipulated enlightenment. The similiarites between the 2 films is also interesting: in the first, the replicants are striving for immortality & the meaning of mortality, which is a common human trait & Sci-Fi concept (the first reconisable Sci-Fi story, The Modern Prometheus aka Frankenstein dealt with issues of immortality/mortality & replacing God with science etc.); in the second, they can live as long as the buyer likes, but have been altered to become selfless to the requirements of humans (Asimov's laws of robotics), thus eradicating selfishness - a very human flaw. The replicants aren't "More Human, Than Human", that is just pure advertising - they are flawed precisely because their makers are flawed. I thought the best concept in the film was the interaction between the K & Joi - 2 AI's trying to communicate/interact with one another. Again the Pinocchio theme, when Joi supplants herself onto the body of the prostitute & it appears like she is a puppeteer, placing her hands on K. But what is most interesting about this relationship is that Joi is the one that feels & craves to be closer to K - she rents the prostitute, she feels the rain & most importantly, she says "I love you". K is not fully formed (his programming prohibits him because he is physically present), he's not a real boy & it is Joi that is trying to teach him because she hasn't had those emotional traits surpressed (she's a hologram designed to alleviate loneliness). Again, there is also the question of whether Joi is just a construct being used by someone else (the daughter or Wallace Corp) to manipulate K. Finally, this interaction reminds me of that recent discovery when programmers let 2 AI's talk to each other & found that they created a new language in order to communicate with each other more easily/effectively - begging the question of what would happen if they hadn't stopped the experiment. I could write about this film for hours, it really is such a rich film with so many interesting concepts that have been presented from differing points of view. Predictions for the future - if the film does well enough, they have left the door open for another film (probably a big action blockbuster), but as it is this film will only get more interesting with more viewings.